Delegitimisation à la Carte: The ‘Rogue State’ Label as a Means of Stabilising Order in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime

  • Carmen Wunderlich
Part of the Global Issues book series (GLOISS)


This chapter focuses on the process of dissidence by ascription, as exemplified in the concept of the ‘rogue state’. Having tracked the evolution of this idea in the context of US foreign policy, it examines the key normative transgressions according to which alleged ‘rogues’ are defined as such. It then demonstrates the selective and apparently arbitrary application of the label, assessing the (non-)applicability of the individual criteria in the case of each of the core ‘rogues’. Apparently, the stigmatisation is driven primarily by instrumental reasons and serves to stabilise the ruling order. Actor characteristics seem to be the crucial factor explaining the various paths and outcomes in dealing with ‘rogues’, accounting both for the stigmatisation and for the varying trajectory of events.


Nuclear Weapon Norm Violation International Terrorism Ruling Order Territorial Aggression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Albright, Madeleine. 1998. ‘Transcript: Albright Remarks at Howard University’. 14 April. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  2. Ali, Javed. 2001. ‘Chemical Weapons and the Iran–Iraq War: A Case Study in Noncompliance’. Nonproliferation Review 8(1): 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amnesty International. 2016. Amnesty International Report 2015/2016: The State of the World’s Human Rights. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  4. Anderson, Lisa. 2006. ‘Rogue Libya’s Long Road’. Middle East Report 241: 42–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ansari, Ali M. 2006. Confronting Iran: The Failure of American Foreign Policy and the Roots of Mistrust. London: C. Hurst & Co.Google Scholar
  6. Arms Control Association. 2004. ‘The U.S.-North Korean Agreed Framework at a Glance: Fact Sheet’. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  7. Bandow, Doug. 2015. ‘North Korea: Evil, but Not a Terrorist State’. The National Interest, 4 May. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  8. Beeman, William O. 2005. The Great Satan vs. the Mad Mullahs: How the United States and Iran Demonize Each Other. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Betts, Richard K. 1977. ‘Paranoids, Pygmies, Pariahs and Nonproliferation’. Foreign Policy 26: 157–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blum, William. 2002. Rogue States: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  11. Bolton, John R. 2002. ‘Beyond the Axis of Evil: Additional Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction’, Heritage Foundation Lecture 743, 6 May. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  12. Braut-Hegghammer, Malfrid. 2011. ‘Revisiting Osirak: Preventive Attacks and Nuclear Proliferation Risks’. International Security 36(1): 101–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bucher, Bernd. 2014. ‘Acting Abstractions: Metaphors, Narrative Structures, and the Eclipse of Agency’. European Journal of International Relations 20(3): 742–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bush, George W. 2002. ‘State of the Union Address’. The White House, Washington, DC, 29 January. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  15. Byman, Daniel. 2008. ‘Iran, Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 31: 169–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Caprioli, Mary, and Peter F. Trumbore. 2003. ‘Identifying “Rogue” States and Testing Their Interstate Conflict Behavior’. European Journal of International Relations 9(3): 377–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castro, Fidel. 1960. ‘First Declaration of Havana: For the Sovereignty and Dignity of the Peoples of America, September 2, 1960’. In Cuban Revolution Reader: A Documentary History of Fidel Castro’s Revolution, edited by Julio García Luis, 81–6. New York: Ocean Books.Google Scholar
  18. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cordesman, Anthony H. 2003. ‘If Its [sic] Syria: Syrian Forces and Military Capabilities’. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  20. Cordesman, Anthony H., and Adam C. Seitz. 2009. ‘Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction: Doctrine, Policy and Command’. Working Draft, Center for Strategic and International Studies. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  21. Cordesman, Anthony H., and Martin Kleiber. 2007. Irans Military Forces and Warfighting Capabilities: The Threat in the Northern Gulf. Westport, CT/London: Praeger Security International.Google Scholar
  22. Crisis Group. 2009. ‘North Korea’s Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs’. International Crisis Group Asia Report 167. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  23. Davenport, Kelsey, and Daryl G. Kimball. 2015. ‘Iran Nuclear Policy Brief: An Effective, Verifiable Nuclear Deal with Iran’. Arms Control Association Threat Assessment Brief, 23 July. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  24. Derrida, Jacques. 2006. Schurken: Zwei Essays über die Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  25. de Graaff, Naná, and Bastiaan van Apeldoorn. 2011. ‘Varieties of US Post-Cold War Imperialism: Anatomy of a Failed Hegemonic Project and the Future of US Geopolitics’. Critical Sociology 37(4): 403–27.Google Scholar
  26. Diab, Zuhair. 1997. ‘Syria’s Chemical and Biological Weapons: Assessing Capabilities and Motivations’. Nonproliferation Review 5(1): 104–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ElBaradei, Mohamed. 2011. The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar
  28. Eljahmi, Mohamed. 2006. ‘Libya and the U.S.: Qadhafi Unrepentant’. Middle East Quarterly 13(1): 11–20.Google Scholar
  29. Farhi, Farideh. 2009. ‘Ahmadinejad’s Nuclear Folly’. Middle East Report 252: 2–5. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  30. Franceschini, Giorgio. 2012. ‘The NPT Review Process and Strengthening the Treaty: Peaceful Uses’. Non-Proliferation Papers 11, EU Non-Proliferation Consortium. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  31. Freedom House. 2003. ‘Freedom in the World 2003: Iraq’. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  32. Freedom House. 2005. ‘Freedom in the World 2005: Libya’. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  33. Freedom House. 2015a. ‘Freedom in the World 2015: Cuba’. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  34. Freedom House. 2015b. ‘Freedom in the World 2015: North Korea’. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  35. García Luis, Julio. ed. 2008. Cuban Revolution Reader: A Documentary History of Fidel Castro’s Revolution. New York: Ocean Books.Google Scholar
  36. Geis, Anna, and Carmen Wunderlich. 2014. ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Comparing the Notions of “Rogue” and “Evil” in International Politics’. International Politics 51(4): 458–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Geldenhuys, Deon. 2004. Deviant Conduct in World Politics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Global Security. n.d. ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nuclear Weapons Programs’. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  39. Goodenough, Patrick. 2008. ‘Libya Shedding Pariah Tag, but Rights Abuses Continue’. CNS News, 7 July. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  40. Harkavy, Robert E. 1981. ‘Pariah States and Nuclear Proliferation’. International Organization 35(1): 135–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harrison, Selig S. 2005. ‘Did North Korea Cheat’. Foreign Affairs 84(1): 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hecker, Siegfried. 2010. ‘A Return Trip to North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear Complex’. CISAC Report, 20 November. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  43. Henriksen, Thomas H. 2001. ‘The Rise and Decline of Rogue States’. Journal of International Affairs 54(2): 349–71.Google Scholar
  44. Henriksen, Thomas H. 2012. America and the Rogue States. New York: Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Herring, Eric. 2000. ‘Rogue Rage: Can We Prevent Mass Destruction?’. Journal of Strategic Studies 23(1): 188–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Herrmann, Richard K., and Michael P. Fischerkeller. 1995. ‘Beyond the Enemy Image and Spiral Model: Cognitive-Strategic Research after the Cold War’. International Organization 49(3): 415–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie. 2015. ‘U.S. Removes Cuba From State-Sponsored Terrorism List’. The New York Times, 29 May. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  48. Homolar, Alexandra. 2011. ‘Rebels without a Conscience: The Evolution of the Rogue State Narrative in US Security Policy’. European Journal of International Relations 17(4): 705–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hoyt, Paul D. 2000. ‘The “Rogue State” Image in American Foreign Policy’. Global Society 14(2): 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. IAEA. 2015. ‘Final Assessment on Past and Present Outstanding Issues Regarding Iran’s Nuclear Programme’. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  51. Johnson, Toni. 2010. ‘The Four Nuclear Outlier States’. Council on Foreign Relations, 20 May. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  52. Joyner, Daniel H. 2011. Interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kaplan, Eben. 2007. ‘How Libya Got off the List’. Council on Foreign Relations, 16 October. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  54. Katzman, Kenneth. 2012. ‘CRS: Iran Sanctions’. Council on Foreign Relations, 26 April. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  55. Kim, Jina. 2014. The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Crisis: The Nuclear Taboo Revisited? London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Klare, Michael. 1995. Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws: America’s Search for a New Foreign Policy. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  57. Koselleck, Reinhart. 1979. Vergangene Zukunft: Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  58. Kustermans, Jorg. 2014. ‘“Roguery” and Citizenship’. In Deviance in International Relations: ‘Rogue States’ and International Security, edited by Wolfgang Wagner, Wouter Werner, and Michal Onderco, 15–37. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lake, Anthony. 1994. ‘Confronting Backlash States’. Foreign Affairs 73(2): 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Litwak, Robert S. 2000. Rogue States and U.S. Foreign Policy: Containment after the Cold War. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.Google Scholar
  61. Litwak, Robert S. 2007. Regime Change: U.S. Strategy through the Prism of 9/11. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press/Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Litwak, Robert S. 2012. Outlier States: American Strategies to Change, Contain, or Engage Regimes. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.Google Scholar
  63. Lodgaard, Sverre. 2008. ‘Dealing with the Outliers’. In Nuclear Challenges and Policy Options for the Next U.S. Administration, Occasional Paper 14, edited by Jean du Preez, 17–23. Monterey, CA: James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.Google Scholar
  64. Malici, Akan. 2009. ‘Rogue States: Enemies of Our Own Making?’. Psicología Política 39: 39–54.Google Scholar
  65. Malici, Akan, and Stephen G. Walker. 2014. ‘Role Theory and “Rogue States”’. In Deviance in International Relations: “Rogue States” and International Security, edited by Wolfgang Wagner, Wouter Werner, and Michal Onderco, 132–51. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Maloney, Suzanne. 2014. ‘Why “Iran Style” Sanctions Worked against Tehran (and Why they Might not Succeed with Moscow)’. Brookings Institution, 21 March. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  67. Monshipouri, Mahmood. 2015. ‘Nuclear Framework Agreement: What to Make of this Deal with Iran?’. Berkeley Blog, 18 November. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  68. Müller, Harald. 2007. ‘The Exceptional End to the Extraordinary Libyan Nuclear Quest’. In Nuclear Proliferation and International Security, edited by Morten Bremer Mærli and Sverre Lodgaard, 73–95. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Müller, Harald. 2014. ‘Evilization in Liberal Discourse: From Kant’s “Unjust Enemy” to Today’s “Rogue State”’. International Politics 51(4): 475–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Müller, Harald. 2015. Khameineis rote Linien: Eine Bewertung des ‘Iran-Abkommens’. HSFK-Report 2. Frankfurt am Main: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  71. Müller, Harald, Una Becker-Jakob, and Tabea Seidler-Diekmann. 2013. ‘Regime Conflicts and Norm Dynamics: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons’. In Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control: Interests, Conflicts, and Justice, edited by Harald Müller and Carmen Wunderlich, 51–81. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  72. Nincic, Miroslav. 2005. Renegade Regimes: Confronting Deviant Behavior in World Politics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nuclear Threat Initiative. 2014. ‘Country Profiles: Syria’. Last update October. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  74. Nuclear Threat Initiative. 2015a. ‘Country Profiles: Cuba’. Last update June. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  75. Nuclear Threat Initiative. 2015b. ‘Country Profiles: Iraq’. Last update July. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  76. Nuclear Threat Initiative. 2015c. ‘Country Profiles: Libya’. Last update October. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  77. Nuclear Threat Initiative. 2016a. ‘Country Profiles: Iran’. Last update March. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  78. Nuclear Threat Initiative 2016b. ‘Country Profile: North Korea’. Last update January. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  79. Obama, Barack. 2009. ‘Inaugural Address’. 21 January. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  80. Ogilvie-White, Tanya. 2010. ‘The Defiant States: The Nuclear Diplomacy of North Korea and Iran’. The Nonproliferation Review 17(1): 117–38.Google Scholar
  81. Onderco, Michal. 2014. ‘From a “Rogue” to a Parolee: Analyzing Libya’s “De-roguing”’. In Deviance in International Relations: ‘Rogue States’ and International Security, edited by Wolfgang Wagner, Wouter Werner, and Michal Onderco, 171–92. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. O’Reilly, Kelly P. 2007. ‘Perceiving Rogue States: The Use of the “Rogue State” Concept by U.S. Foreign Policy Elites’. Foreign Policy Analysis 3(4): 295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pak, Gil Yon. 2004. ‘Statement to the 59th Session of the UNGA First Committee’. 12 October. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  84. Patrikarakos, David. 2012. Nuclear Iran: The Birth of an Atomic State. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  85. Potter, William C., and Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova. 2012. Nuclear Politics and the Non-Aligned Movement: Principles vs. Pragmatism. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  86. Quester, George. 1975. What’s New on Nuclear Non-Proliferation. Aspen: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies.Google Scholar
  87. Ratner, Steven R. 1999. ‘Aggression’. In Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know, edited by Roy Gutman and David Rieff, 25. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  88. Rawls, John. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Reaching Critical Will. n.d. ‘Country Profiles: Cuba’. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  90. Reagan, Ronald. 1983. ‘Evil Empire’. Speech Transcript, 8 March. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  91. Reagan, Ronald. 1985. ‘Remarks at the Annual Convention of the American Bar Association’. 8 July. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  92. Reagan, Ronald. 1986. ‘The President’s News Conference’. 9 April. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  93. Rice, Condoleezza. 2005. ‘Opening Remarks by Secretary of State-Designate Dr. Condoleezza Rice’. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington DC, 18 January. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  94. Rosenberg, Elizabeth, and Sara Vakhshouri. 2015. ‘Iran’s Economic Reintegration: Sanctions Relief, Energy, and Economic Growth under a Nuclear Agreement with Iran’. Center for a New American Security, 23 June. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  95. Rotberg, Robert I. 2007. The Worst of the Worst: Dealing with Repressive and Rogue Nations. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  96. Rubin, Michael. 2014. Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes. New York, NY: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
  97. Rublee, Maria Rost. 2009. Nonproliferation Norms: Why States Choose Nuclear Restraint. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  98. Sakar, Jayita. 2013. ‘The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime and Its Dissidents: A Conflict of Paradigms?’. Yale Journal of International Affairs, 8 April. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  99. Sands, Amy, and Jason Pate. 2001. ‘CWC Compliance Issues’. In The Chemical Weapons Convention: Implementation Challenges and Solutions, edited by Jonathan B. Tucker, 17–22. Monterey, CA: James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.Google Scholar
  100. Saunders, Elizabeth. 2006. ‘Setting Boundaries: Can International Society Exclude “Rogue States”?’. International Studies Review 8: 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Schenker, David. 2006. ‘Syria, Hamas, and the Gaza Crisis’. Policywatch 1121, 10 July. The Washington Institute. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  102. Schmittchen, Dirk, and Holger Stritzel. 2011. ‘Securitization, Culture, and Power: Rogue States in US and German Discourse’. In Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve, edited by Thierry Balzacq, 170–85. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  103. Senn, Martin. 2009. Wolves in the Woods: The Rogue State Concept from a Constructivist Perspective. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Squassoni, Sharon A., and Andrew Feickert 2004. ‘Disarming Libya: Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Congressional Research Service Report. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  105. Suk Ahn, Mun. 2011. ‘What Is the Root Cause of the North Korean Nuclear Program?’. Asian Affairs: An American Review 38(4): 175–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Tanter, Raymond. 1999. Rogue Regimes: Terrorism and Proliferation. New York, NY: St Martin’s Griffin.Google Scholar
  107. US State Department. 1985. ‘Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1984’. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  108. US State Department. 2009. ‘Country Reports on Terrorism 2008’. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  109. US State Department. 2015. ‘Country Reports on Terrorism 2014’. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  110. US State Department. 2016a. ‘Country Reports on Terrorism 2015’. Accessed 12 June 2016.
  111. US State Department. 2016b. ‘State Sponsors of Terrorism’. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  112. US White House. 2002. ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’. September. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  113. US White House. 2010. ‘National Security Strategy’. 1 May. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  114. US White House. 2011. ‘Remarks by the President on the Situation in Libya’. Office of the Press Secretary, 18 March. Accessed 17 February 2016.
  115. Wagner, Wolfgang. 2010. ‘Rehabilitation or Retribution? Cultures of Control and Policies towards “Rogue States”’. Inaugural Lecture, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 4 October. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  116. Wagner, Wolfgang. 2014. ‘Rehabilitation or Exclusion? A Criminological Perspective on Policies towards “Rogue States”’. In Deviance in International Relations: ‘Rogue States’ and International Security, edited by Wolfgang Wagner, Wouter Werner, and Michal Onderco, 152–70. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Wendt, Alexander. 1998. ‘Constitution and Causation in International Relations’. Review of International Studies 24(5): 101–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wit, Joel S. 2001. ‘North Korea: The Leader of the Pack’. Washington Quarterly 24(1): 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Woods, Ian 2015. ‘Nuclear Deal Could Encourage Iran’s Global Reintegration’. The Red & Black, 26 August. Accessed 2 June 2016.
  120. Wunderlich, Carmen. 2014. ‘A “Rogue” Gone Norm Entrepreneurial? Iran within the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime’. In Deviance in International Relations: ‘Rogue States’ and International Security, edited by Wolfgang Wagner, Wouter Werner, and Michal Onderco, 83–104. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Wunderlich, Carmen. 2015. ‘Schwarze Schafe oder Schafe im Wolfspelz? “Schurkenstaaten” als Normunternehmer’. Doctoral diss., Goethe University Frankfurt, Mimeo.Google Scholar
  122. Wunderlich, Carmen, Andrea Hellmann, Daniel Müller, Judith Reuter, and Hans-Joachim Schmidt. 2013. ‘Non-Aligned Reformers and Revolutionaries: Egypt, South Africa, Iran, and North Korea’. In Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms Control: Interests, Conflicts, and Justice, edited by Harald Müller and Carmen Wunderlich, 246–95. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF)Frankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations